{"title":"天主教教育改革与公教主义:圣方济各省行政官Matthias肉役(212 / 1461)","authors":"Bert Roest","doi":"10.1353/cat.2007.0128","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"life, McGuire’s careful balancing act is, I would judge, successful. Somewhat less successful, however, is the balance he achieves between the depth and rigor of his analyses of Gerson’s own writings and his somewhat uneven handling of the contextual background against which they are seen. Thus it is impossible to grasp the full significance of Gerson’s clash with Gorel on the matter of mendicant privileges without seeing it in the context of the great mendicant-secular controversy at Paris in the 1250’s or the seventeenth-century struggle in France to vindicate the divinely-established hierarchical status of the parochial clergy. Nor can it convincingly be claimed that “Gerson’s last contributions at Constance have for the most part been ignored” (p. 281). After all, the first blow struck in the great war of words surrounding the Venetian interdict of 1606 was the republication in Italian translation of two of Gerson’s tracts from 1418—his Resolutio circa materiam excommunicationum et irregularitatum and his De sententia pastoris semper tenenda.That blow was struck by the acerbic Venetian theologian Paolo Sarpi, and it had the effect of drawing down on him (and on the memory of Gerson) the ire of none other than Cardinal Robert Bellarmine. Nor, again, is it altogether accurate to assert that after 1706 Gerson was to become something of a parochial figure, “celebrated by French academics and more or less forgotten elsewhere” (p. 318). He figures large, after all, in the De statu ecclesiae which the auxiliary bishop of Trier (writing under the pseudonym of “Febronius”) was to publish in 1763 and which was soon to be a best seller, circulated all over Europe in German, French, Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese translations. Nor was Gerson unknown to the recusant “Anglo-Gallicans” of late-eighteenth-century England or, across the Atlantic, to their “Cisalpine” fellow-travellers in the newly-independent United States.","PeriodicalId":44384,"journal":{"name":"CATHOLIC HISTORICAL REVIEW","volume":"71 1","pages":"161 - 163"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2007-03-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/cat.2007.0128","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ordensreform und Konziliarismus: Der Franziskanerprovinzial Matthias Döring (1427-1461) (review)\",\"authors\":\"Bert Roest\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/cat.2007.0128\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"life, McGuire’s careful balancing act is, I would judge, successful. Somewhat less successful, however, is the balance he achieves between the depth and rigor of his analyses of Gerson’s own writings and his somewhat uneven handling of the contextual background against which they are seen. Thus it is impossible to grasp the full significance of Gerson’s clash with Gorel on the matter of mendicant privileges without seeing it in the context of the great mendicant-secular controversy at Paris in the 1250’s or the seventeenth-century struggle in France to vindicate the divinely-established hierarchical status of the parochial clergy. Nor can it convincingly be claimed that “Gerson’s last contributions at Constance have for the most part been ignored” (p. 281). After all, the first blow struck in the great war of words surrounding the Venetian interdict of 1606 was the republication in Italian translation of two of Gerson’s tracts from 1418—his Resolutio circa materiam excommunicationum et irregularitatum and his De sententia pastoris semper tenenda.That blow was struck by the acerbic Venetian theologian Paolo Sarpi, and it had the effect of drawing down on him (and on the memory of Gerson) the ire of none other than Cardinal Robert Bellarmine. Nor, again, is it altogether accurate to assert that after 1706 Gerson was to become something of a parochial figure, “celebrated by French academics and more or less forgotten elsewhere” (p. 318). He figures large, after all, in the De statu ecclesiae which the auxiliary bishop of Trier (writing under the pseudonym of “Febronius”) was to publish in 1763 and which was soon to be a best seller, circulated all over Europe in German, French, Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese translations. Nor was Gerson unknown to the recusant “Anglo-Gallicans” of late-eighteenth-century England or, across the Atlantic, to their “Cisalpine” fellow-travellers in the newly-independent United States.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44384,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"CATHOLIC HISTORICAL REVIEW\",\"volume\":\"71 1\",\"pages\":\"161 - 163\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2007-03-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/cat.2007.0128\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"CATHOLIC HISTORICAL REVIEW\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/cat.2007.0128\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CATHOLIC HISTORICAL REVIEW","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/cat.2007.0128","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
在我看来,麦奎尔小心翼翼的平衡之举是成功的。然而,他在分析格尔森个人作品的深度和严谨性,以及对这些作品所处背景的不太平衡的处理之间取得了平衡,这一点有些不太成功。因此,如果不把格尔森与戈雷尔在修道僧特权问题上的冲突放在1250年代巴黎的修道僧与世俗之间的大争论或17世纪法国为维护神圣建立的教区神职人员等级地位而进行的斗争的背景下,就不可能理解它的全部意义。也不能令人信服地声称“格尔森在康斯坦茨的最后贡献大部分被忽略了”(第281页)。毕竟,围绕1606年威尼斯禁教令展开的巨大论战的第一个打击,是格尔森1418年的两本小册子的意大利语译本的重印——他的《决议》(resolution circa materiam excommunicationum et irregularitatum)和他的《牧师终身封禁》(De sententia pastoris semper tenenda)。这一打击是尖刻的威尼斯神学家保罗·萨尔皮(Paolo Sarpi)发起的,结果引起了他(以及格尔森的记忆)红衣主教罗伯特·贝拉明(Robert Bellarmine)的愤怒。同样,断言格尔森在1706年之后成为了一个小范围的人物,“受到法国学术界的赞扬,而在其他地方或多或少被遗忘”也不完全准确(第318页)。毕竟,他在1763年特里尔辅理主教(以“Febronius”的笔名写作)出版的《论教会地位》一书中占据了重要地位,这本书很快成为畅销书,以德语、法语、意大利语、西班牙语和葡萄牙语的译本在欧洲各地流传。18世纪晚期英国那些不情愿的“盎格鲁-高卢人”,以及大西洋对岸新独立的美国那些“阿尔卑斯山脉”的同道中人,对格尔森也不是一无所知。
Ordensreform und Konziliarismus: Der Franziskanerprovinzial Matthias Döring (1427-1461) (review)
life, McGuire’s careful balancing act is, I would judge, successful. Somewhat less successful, however, is the balance he achieves between the depth and rigor of his analyses of Gerson’s own writings and his somewhat uneven handling of the contextual background against which they are seen. Thus it is impossible to grasp the full significance of Gerson’s clash with Gorel on the matter of mendicant privileges without seeing it in the context of the great mendicant-secular controversy at Paris in the 1250’s or the seventeenth-century struggle in France to vindicate the divinely-established hierarchical status of the parochial clergy. Nor can it convincingly be claimed that “Gerson’s last contributions at Constance have for the most part been ignored” (p. 281). After all, the first blow struck in the great war of words surrounding the Venetian interdict of 1606 was the republication in Italian translation of two of Gerson’s tracts from 1418—his Resolutio circa materiam excommunicationum et irregularitatum and his De sententia pastoris semper tenenda.That blow was struck by the acerbic Venetian theologian Paolo Sarpi, and it had the effect of drawing down on him (and on the memory of Gerson) the ire of none other than Cardinal Robert Bellarmine. Nor, again, is it altogether accurate to assert that after 1706 Gerson was to become something of a parochial figure, “celebrated by French academics and more or less forgotten elsewhere” (p. 318). He figures large, after all, in the De statu ecclesiae which the auxiliary bishop of Trier (writing under the pseudonym of “Febronius”) was to publish in 1763 and which was soon to be a best seller, circulated all over Europe in German, French, Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese translations. Nor was Gerson unknown to the recusant “Anglo-Gallicans” of late-eighteenth-century England or, across the Atlantic, to their “Cisalpine” fellow-travellers in the newly-independent United States.